All-Star A Night With The Popes.

[MyGirlCheers]

This also says 2012-2013... unless the rules stated the exact same thing (which I am totally unaware as I can hardly keep up with current rules) last year. Sounds like this was an add on "clarification" for this season... unless I'm totally wrong, than in that case :wasntme:

http://usasf.net.ismmedia.com/ISM2/Member%20Documents%20/09_10_Age_Grid.pdf


CROSSOVERS
An individual will not be permitted to crossover from one program to another within the same event (Exception: An athlete from one
gym may crossover to one additional gym’s Level 6 team provided (s)he meets the age requirement.
For the 2011-12 season, an all-star cheerleader is limited to crossing over to 2 (two) additional cheer teams from their gym per
competition. Therefore, an athlete may compete on one team and crossover to two more teams from the same gym during the
competition.
An event producer may choose to be more restrictive than the rules above for crossovers limiting the number of teams an athlete may
crossover to further; however an event producer may not be less restrictive than this.
Crossover limitations above do not include athletes that crossover from cheer to dance.

My question is: it says an individual will not be permitted to crossover from one program to another within the same event. I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that a program is defined as having "one physical address" with the exception of programs that have two locations, but it's one gym with the majority of teams working from both locations (I'm paraphrasing). So, assuming that's still the USASF definition of program, wouldn't she also be in violation for crossing over to more than one program?

 

[5-6-7-8]

Well everyone, there is one way to make sure Cheersport gets punished if USASF doesn't do anything...boycott Cheersport.

Now I am a realist and I know that will never happen, but at the least, perhaps Cheersport should have to forfeit a bid or two.

 

[Just-a-Mom]

Can we all keep in mind that there is a difference between "cheating" and "breaking a rule". Obviously intent is critical. If the intent was to cheat, would the girls name have actually been on all 4 rosters?

Just like self-defense, manslaughter and murder are different in penalties even though the result is the same.

At this point, CEA has been penalized but the pitchfork crew really should be upset with USASF and the penalty if they don't feel there were enough lashes.

I mostly agree. Obviously I am also pointing my pitchfork at USASF if that is indeed the only penalty that will be doled out, but my understanding is that they are still reviewing everything before they make a statement? I'm still sort of holding out hope that there may be more action (like awarding the title to someone else). If not then obviously the penalty is a problem. It's not that it wasn't enough money - I agree it isn't CSP's fault that her business is so successful that the $1000 is a drop in the bucket to her. If that's the fine, then that's the fine. I think the penalty should be a penalty that actually fits the "crime" - strip the titles of all 4 teams. Plain and simple. Is that sad for the kids? Of course. But it happens.

I'm not clear on intent. Obviously the intent was not to be deceitful, or she wouldn't have been on all 4 rosters. But to me intentionally breaking a rule counts as intent. I'm sorry but this whole story just doesn't "wash" with me. Why would CSP take 4 teams to this competition and then ask about changing them to exhibition (or whatever happened)? I guess what most of us aren't clear on is why on earth was this girl on 4 teams in the first place? Why wasn't this handled in North Carolina months before Cheersport? As has been pointed out, CEA certainly isn't lacking for athletes. They aren't some tiny program with 30 kids to work with. Certainly way back when they first decided the 2 teams were too awesome to be combined this girl should have been pulled from one. So I think the "intent" most of us are seeing is that she put the girl on 4 teams. Knowing that the rules stated she couldn't compete on 4 teams. Knowing there were a couple comps where all 4 teams would be going.

As I've said, I've heard so many versions of this at this point I can't keep them all straight, but I seem to recall it being a last minute thing that this girl "had to" be put back on this team? Really? There was NO ONE else? If gyms with 30 kids can cover injuries without having kids compete on 4 teams, I'm pretty sure CEA with 7 locations and God knows how many kids could have found another kid. That's where people are seeing "intent".

And I think there's a certain feeling of CSP thinking she is above the rules if she even bothered to roster this girl on 4 teams and THEN ask CS questions. I think most people feel like a lesser known gym would have just found a different athlete and wouldn't even have the audacity to ASK about having one athlete hit the mat FOUR times, regardless of what capacity it was in.

 

[Mclovin]

My question is: it says an individual will not be permitted to crossover from one program to another within the same event. I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that a program is defined as having "one physical address" with the exception of programs that have two locations, but it's one gym with the majority of teams working from both locations (I'm paraphrasing). So, assuming that's still the USASF definition of program, wouldn't she also be in violation for crossing over to more than one program?

I don't think so. To be honest, that rule confuses me a little. I read it the same way you do, but I know lots of gyms crossover athletes from one location to another and it seems to be fine. Maybe it's a grey area??

 

[kristenthegreat]

I don't think so. To be honest, that rule confuses me a little. I read it the same way you do, but I know lots of gyms crossover athletes from one location to another and it seems to be fine. Maybe it's a grey area??

I think they mention somewhere that they're defining program as PROGRAM (meaning CEA, Fame, Cali, etc). Not as each separate gym as a separate entity- as you may still be required to compete against your own gym even if they're from a different location (I might be mashing things together- double check division splitting).

 

[5-6-7-8]

And I think there's a certain feeling of CSP thinking she is above the rules if she even bothered to roster this girl on 4 teams and THEN ask CS questions. I think most people feel like a lesser known gym would have just found a different athlete and wouldn't even have the audacity to ASK about having one athlete hit the mat FOUR times, regardless of what capacity it was in.

Great points in your entire post but wanted to comment on above. I think that is exactly why many are up in arms over this. There has been much speculation on here about big name gyms getting special treatment (be it favorable judging, reduced comp fees, other incentives, etc.).

This just proves that it does exist.

 

[kristenthegreat]

No. I googled it just to be sure I wasn't off my rocker.

But in that definition- it is defined as having competitive value. IS there a competitive value if you're going against nobody? Even if you're being scored, are you still competing? Some companies score exhibitions, some don't. I was a member of an Open team. I 'won' a jamfest competition, against nobody. Did I still compete? Only in the cheer world would I have competed against myself and won. NO other sport does this- which is why we're having an issue.

 

[kristenthegreat]

Our minis went level 5 a couple years ago, since they were alone in the division. This brought that to mind, too.
And they did receive medals or whatever for "winning" their division. It wasn't a national title and a jacket on the line, so does that make a difference?

I don't know, does it? Depends on if you define your nationals as a 'true' nationals. See my post above about me being on an Open team. ^

Also- I'd like to point out two things (which reference other posts besides yours):
1) There are several conflicting stories about how many teams was she on in the first place. Some say it was only 3, and she helped out for this comp because another girl was injured on YR5, who was going against nobody. Which meant she was legal until this one competition regardless, where she helped out a team that had zero competition.
2) Others also mentioned that it only matters on how many teams you're competing on per competition- you can be on 6 different teams in a gym, but if you're only competing on 3 at one competition, that's all that matters.

I smell a LOOPHOLE.

 

[Just-a-Mom]

No. I googled it just to be sure I wasn't off my rocker.
Wiki

Dictionary.Com


Just because USASF doesn't define it in the rules does not mean the definition is up for interpretation.

Thank you. I was readying kristenthegreat 's post and starting to think I was off my rocker too. That's what I thought it meant - no "competition" aspect at all (prize, title, etc.), which this team most certainly did receive.

So can we put the "The 4th team was just exhibition" excuse to rest? They received the title "National Champion" and jackets. Not. Exhibition. I don't know how to make it more clear cut. There is a definition of exhibition, and this isn't it.

(And yes there is actually a video of them receiving the title etc. It's on dartfish if anyone wants to look it up)

ETA:

But in that definition- it is defined as having competitive value. IS there a competitive value if you're going against nobody? Even if you're being scored, are you still competing? Some companies score exhibitions, some don't. I was a member of an Open team. I 'won' a jamfest competition, against nobody. Did I still compete? Only in the cheer world would I have competed against myself and won. NO other sport does this- which is why we're having an issue.

See above. But HECK YES there is competitive value in hanging a banner, getting jackets, and getting to put on your website "X number of times Cheersport National Champions" . How is that not valuable? They were given a title and a prize.

 

[Mclovin]

But in that definition- it is defined as having competitive value. IS there a competitive value if you're going against nobody? Even if you're being scored, are you still competing? Some companies score exhibitions, some don't. I was a member of an Open team. I 'won' a jamfest competition, against nobody. Did I still compete? Only in the cheer world would I have competed against myself and won. NO other sport does this- which is why we're having an issue.

I don't really care what other sports do as far as "exhibitions" go, but in the cheer world, when you register as an exhibition team you are essentially going to "perform", not compete. You might or might not get scored, but you most certainly do NOT walk away with a banner, jacket, or any other kind of award for "winning" when you exhibition. So even when a team has no other team to compete against, they still walk away with a title because they entered a "competitive" division. Let's say it's similar to a team winning because another team had to forfeit. They didn't even play the game but they still "won" and get to record it on their record. For a pre-season game or exhibition, that is not recorded nor are awards received for same.

 

[MomOf2ThatsMe]

But in that definition- it is defined as having competitive value. IS there a competitive value if you're going against nobody? Even if you're being scored, are you still competing? Some companies score exhibitions, some don't. I was a member of an Open team. I 'won' a jamfest competition, against nobody. Did I still compete? Only in the cheer world would I have competed against myself and won. NO other sport does this- which is why we're having an issue.

Huh? No, it says NO competitive value of any significant kind to any competitior.

 

[FierceandFearless]

There IS a difference between cheating and breaking a rule, I agree. But is there a difference in the ethics behind either? No. Do I think CEA should be banned from worlds for having an athlete compete on 4 teams? No. Do I think all 4 of those teams should have to give their jackets and trophies back? Yes. Do I think CS should be punished as well? ABSOLUTELY! No matter how it's worded, what was done was wrong, by all parties involved. CSP should never have asked that girl to compete on the 4th team KNOWING the rules say no and CS should never have told her to go ahead acting as though they are above the rules themselves...

You make good points. All of you have made great points in a lot of aspects. I just want to say, thank you to those of you who can and have pointed out good, valid points, without being biased. Over the past several days I have seen and heard people make unreasonable statements against CSP, CEA, etc. and then start attacking said parties further and even begin attacking other users and making it appear personal. But I have also seen a handful of others who make very valid points in a respectful manner. Thank you to everyone who was and is, able to make their points without going over the top.

I agree, both parties are to blame, but the horrible, hurtful, malicious, rumors about CSP and CEA are completely uncalled for, unnecessary and are heartbreaking. Like several people have pointed out, CS is just as much to blame, if not more.

In my opinion the way I see it I don't view what they did as "cheating". I see it is as breaking/bending a rule. I agree, with Just-A-Mom when she said, quote: "What I really care about is that someone is owed some jackets and a title (and a banner). And if I was a gym owner of any 2nd place team in any of those divisions I'd be screaming for someone's head on a platter (I don't know that they're not, I assume they are)."

If CSP did in fact try to go exhibition but was told not to, then I do feel like her intentions were good. Someone pointed out that it was not okay for her to have allowed that athlete compete 4 times because she knew the rules. I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe, (just like all of us did) she got confused with the wording of rule, which again, states: "For the 2011-12 season, an all-star cheerleader is limited to crossing over to 2 (two) additional cheer teams from their gym per competition. Therefore, an athlete may compete on one team and crossover to two more teams from the same gym during the competition." and that she possibly thought (again, much like many of us did) that the rule said "may not compete or perform" not crossover. If that's the case, then her trying to go exhibition was her trying to not break the rules, cheat, etc. I don't view that as a bad thing. I think the fact that CS took the rules into their own hands is worse than (theoretically) an unintentional violation of the rules. I understand there are other "facts" and suggestions that make some of this seem far fetched and a little sketchy, but again, that theory is just that. A theory. If she did in fact know that the rule specifically said "crossover" and not "compete" or "perform" then I do feel that was poor judgement on her part. I agree, crossing over is crossing over, exhibition or not.

Also, like it was pointed out, the girl was on all 4 rosters which is also another reason why I don't view this as "cheating".


Okay, I hope this makes sense and......*stepping off soapbox*... lol

ETA: I am not being biased with this post, I would honestly give any other gym/person the same benefit of the doubt in this situation.
[/quote]

 

[kristenthegreat]

I don't really care what other sports do as far as "exhibitions" go, but in the cheer world, when you register as an exhibition team you are essentially going to "perform", not compete. You might or might not get scored, but you most certainly do NOT walk away with a banner, jacket, or any other kind of award for "winning" when you exhibition. So even when a team has no other team to compete against, they still walk away with a title because they entered a "competitive" division. Let's say it's similar to a team winning because another team had to forfeit. They didn't even play the game but they still "won" and get to record it on their record. For a pre-season game or exhibition, that is not recorded nor are awards received for same.

I just had to quote you as a side note because you changed your profile pic and I'm like 'WHO am I talking to??' lol

Then the question becomes- SHOULD that be the case? I don't think I've EVER gone to any type of sporting tournament where we won games by forfeit. And I played various levels of all sorts of sports. If there was not going to be anyone there in our division, we didn't go. But even THAT didn't happen. The only place I've encountered this is in cheerleading. And this is part of the reason why people don't take us seriously..So what do we do about it?

 

[Cheer_Explosion_Coach]

Can we all keep in mind that there is a difference between "cheating" and "breaking a rule". Obviously intent is critical. If the intent was to cheat, would the girls name have actually been on all 4 rosters?

Just like self-defense, manslaughter and murder are different in penalties even though the result is the same.

At this point, CEA has been penalized but the pitchfork crew really should be upset with USASF and the penalty if they don't feel there were enough lashes.

Why should anyone be upset with the USASF? They didn't break the rule? However, yes CS and CEA broke rules. And CS might get a worse punishment. I am strongly considering NOT bringing my 9 teams to ATL this year because of CS decided they would allow CEA break a rule that I follow and believe in. That is waaay more than $1,000.

 

[kristenthegreat]

Why should anyone be upset with the USASF? They didn't break the rule? However, yes CS and CEA broke rules. And CS might get a worse punishment. I am strongly considering NOT bringing my 9 teams to ATL this year because of CS decided they would allow CEA break a rule that I follow and believe in. That is waaay more than $1,000.

If you don't feel like they're being thorough enough with their rules, if you don't feel punishments are strong enough to fit the crime, etc. Those would be things the USASF is responsible for, and things that require your anger.